Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 78 | 39 | 39 |
2nd | 60 | 33 | 27 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 781 | control, N = 391 | treatment, N = 391 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 78 | 41.15 ± 18.34 (21 - 148) | 42.47 ± 21.27 (22 - 148) | 39.82 ± 15.00 (21 - 70) | 0.526 |
gender | 78 | 0.202 | |||
female | 57 (73%) | 26 (67%) | 31 (79%) | ||
male | 21 (27%) | 13 (33%) | 8 (21%) | ||
occupation | 78 | 0.831 | |||
civil | 3 (3.8%) | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
clerk | 15 (19%) | 7 (18%) | 8 (21%) | ||
homemaker | 7 (9.0%) | 2 (5.1%) | 5 (13%) | ||
manager | 10 (13%) | 6 (15%) | 4 (10%) | ||
other | 10 (13%) | 4 (10%) | 6 (15%) | ||
professional | 11 (14%) | 8 (21%) | 3 (7.7%) | ||
retired | 3 (3.8%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (5.1%) | ||
service | 4 (5.1%) | 2 (5.1%) | 2 (5.1%) | ||
student | 13 (17%) | 6 (15%) | 7 (18%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
working_status | 78 | 53 (68%) | 29 (74%) | 24 (62%) | 0.225 |
marital | 78 | >0.999 | |||
divorced | 3 (3.8%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (5.1%) | ||
married | 21 (27%) | 11 (28%) | 10 (26%) | ||
single | 53 (68%) | 26 (67%) | 27 (69%) | ||
widowed | 1 (1.3%) | 1 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 78 | >0.999 | |||
married | 21 (27%) | 11 (28%) | 10 (26%) | ||
other | 4 (5.1%) | 2 (5.1%) | 2 (5.1%) | ||
single | 53 (68%) | 26 (67%) | 27 (69%) | ||
education | 78 | 0.040 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 11 (14%) | 2 (5.1%) | 9 (23%) | ||
post-secondary | 13 (17%) | 9 (23%) | 4 (10%) | ||
university | 54 (69%) | 28 (72%) | 26 (67%) | ||
university_edu | 78 | 54 (69%) | 28 (72%) | 26 (67%) | 0.624 |
family_income | 78 | 0.379 | |||
0_10000 | 10 (13%) | 4 (10%) | 6 (15%) | ||
10001_20000 | 16 (21%) | 5 (13%) | 11 (28%) | ||
20001_30000 | 13 (17%) | 8 (21%) | 5 (13%) | ||
30001_40000 | 10 (13%) | 5 (13%) | 5 (13%) | ||
40000_above | 29 (37%) | 17 (44%) | 12 (31%) | ||
high_income | 78 | 39 (50%) | 22 (56%) | 17 (44%) | 0.258 |
religion | 78 | 0.605 | |||
buddhism | 5 (6.4%) | 4 (10%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
catholic | 5 (6.4%) | 2 (5.1%) | 3 (7.7%) | ||
christianity | 26 (33%) | 12 (31%) | 14 (36%) | ||
nil | 40 (51%) | 21 (54%) | 19 (49%) | ||
other | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
taoism | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
religion_r | 78 | 0.792 | |||
christianity | 31 (40%) | 14 (36%) | 17 (44%) | ||
nil | 40 (51%) | 21 (54%) | 19 (49%) | ||
other | 7 (9.0%) | 4 (10%) | 3 (7.7%) | ||
source | 78 | 0.008 | |||
bokss | 35 (45%) | 14 (36%) | 21 (54%) | ||
12 (15%) | 10 (26%) | 2 (5.1%) | |||
5 (6.4%) | 5 (13%) | 0 (0%) | |||
other | 12 (15%) | 4 (10%) | 8 (21%) | ||
refresh | 14 (18%) | 6 (15%) | 8 (21%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 781 | control, N = 391 | treatment, N = 391 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 78 | 19.56 ± 2.28 (15 - 25) | 19.18 ± 2.14 (15 - 24) | 19.95 ± 2.38 (15 - 25) | 0.138 |
setv | 78 | 11.22 ± 1.70 (8 - 15) | 11.03 ± 1.63 (8 - 14) | 11.41 ± 1.77 (8 - 15) | 0.322 |
maks | 78 | 44.71 ± 3.70 (36 - 54) | 44.26 ± 3.65 (36 - 52) | 45.15 ± 3.74 (38 - 54) | 0.287 |
ibs | 78 | 15.64 ± 2.22 (9 - 20) | 15.62 ± 2.14 (11 - 20) | 15.67 ± 2.33 (9 - 20) | 0.920 |
ers_e | 78 | 12.32 ± 1.42 (9 - 15) | 12.33 ± 1.46 (9 - 15) | 12.31 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 0.937 |
ers_r | 78 | 11.41 ± 1.51 (8 - 15) | 11.33 ± 1.36 (8 - 14) | 11.49 ± 1.65 (8 - 15) | 0.655 |
pss_pa | 78 | 45.05 ± 4.65 (30 - 54) | 44.41 ± 4.59 (30 - 54) | 45.69 ± 4.68 (31 - 54) | 0.226 |
pss_ps | 78 | 25.33 ± 7.29 (12 - 42) | 26.51 ± 7.71 (14 - 42) | 24.15 ± 6.74 (12 - 41) | 0.154 |
pss | 78 | 43.28 ± 11.17 (21 - 72) | 45.10 ± 11.69 (23 - 72) | 41.46 ± 10.46 (21 - 67) | 0.151 |
rki_responsible | 78 | 21.21 ± 3.93 (13 - 29) | 20.82 ± 4.25 (13 - 29) | 21.59 ± 3.58 (14 - 28) | 0.390 |
rki_nonlinear | 78 | 13.45 ± 2.74 (7 - 22) | 13.21 ± 2.48 (7 - 20) | 13.69 ± 2.98 (8 - 22) | 0.436 |
rki_peer | 78 | 20.49 ± 2.20 (16 - 25) | 20.54 ± 2.22 (16 - 25) | 20.44 ± 2.20 (16 - 25) | 0.838 |
rki_expect | 78 | 4.69 ± 1.00 (3 - 7) | 4.46 ± 0.94 (3 - 6) | 4.92 ± 1.01 (3 - 7) | 0.040 |
rki | 78 | 59.83 ± 5.82 (50 - 80) | 59.03 ± 5.89 (50 - 76) | 60.64 ± 5.71 (50 - 80) | 0.222 |
raq_possible | 78 | 15.58 ± 1.89 (12 - 20) | 15.64 ± 2.03 (12 - 20) | 15.51 ± 1.76 (12 - 20) | 0.767 |
raq_difficulty | 78 | 12.31 ± 1.45 (9 - 15) | 12.44 ± 1.48 (9 - 15) | 12.18 ± 1.43 (9 - 15) | 0.439 |
raq | 78 | 27.88 ± 3.06 (21 - 35) | 28.08 ± 3.26 (21 - 35) | 27.69 ± 2.88 (21 - 35) | 0.582 |
who | 78 | 15.10 ± 4.32 (7 - 25) | 14.95 ± 4.29 (8 - 25) | 15.26 ± 4.41 (7 - 25) | 0.756 |
phq | 78 | 3.46 ± 3.65 (0 - 18) | 3.72 ± 3.68 (0 - 14) | 3.21 ± 3.65 (0 - 18) | 0.539 |
gad | 78 | 3.04 ± 3.13 (0 - 12) | 3.28 ± 3.14 (0 - 12) | 2.79 ± 3.15 (0 - 12) | 0.496 |
nb_pcs | 78 | 50.72 ± 7.81 (25 - 63) | 51.43 ± 7.63 (25 - 63) | 50.01 ± 8.03 (27 - 61) | 0.428 |
nb_mcs | 78 | 50.98 ± 8.68 (22 - 70) | 50.39 ± 9.06 (22 - 68) | 51.57 ± 8.36 (35 - 70) | 0.553 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.337 | 18.5, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.769 | 0.477 | -0.166, 1.70 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.321 | 0.405 | -1.11, 0.473 | 0.431 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.034 | 0.595 | -1.20, 1.13 | 0.954 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.272 | 10.5, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.385 | 0.384 | -0.368, 1.14 | 0.319 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.255 | 0.274 | -0.282, 0.791 | 0.356 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.182 | 0.404 | -0.974, 0.610 | 0.654 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.3 | 0.624 | 43.0, 45.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.897 | 0.883 | -0.833, 2.63 | 0.312 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.501 | -0.939, 1.03 | 0.931 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.374 | 0.743 | -1.08, 1.83 | 0.616 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.339 | 15.0, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.051 | 0.480 | -0.889, 0.991 | 0.915 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.190 | 0.323 | -0.443, 0.824 | 0.559 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.270 | 0.478 | -0.666, 1.21 | 0.573 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.228 | 11.9, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.026 | 0.323 | -0.659, 0.608 | 0.937 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.524 | 0.189 | -0.894, -0.154 | 0.007 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.510 | 0.280 | -0.038, 1.06 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.3 | 0.235 | 10.9, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.154 | 0.333 | -0.499, 0.806 | 0.645 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.154 | 0.259 | -0.662, 0.355 | 0.556 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.291 | 0.382 | -0.458, 1.04 | 0.450 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.4 | 0.730 | 43.0, 45.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.28 | 1.033 | -0.742, 3.31 | 0.217 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.29 | 0.807 | -2.87, 0.288 | 0.114 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.083 | 1.188 | -2.41, 2.25 | 0.945 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.5 | 1.164 | 24.2, 28.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.36 | 1.646 | -5.59, 0.867 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.16 | 1.131 | -1.06, 3.38 | 0.310 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.16 | 1.671 | -4.44, 2.12 | 0.490 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 45.1 | 1.739 | 41.7, 48.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.64 | 2.459 | -8.46, 1.18 | 0.142 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.46 | 1.647 | -0.765, 5.69 | 0.140 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.13 | 2.434 | -5.90, 3.64 | 0.644 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.044 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.8 | 0.588 | 19.7, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.769 | 0.832 | -0.862, 2.40 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.026 | 0.616 | -1.18, 1.23 | 0.967 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.321 | 0.908 | -2.10, 1.46 | 0.725 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.454 | 12.3, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.487 | 0.642 | -0.771, 1.75 | 0.450 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.316 | 0.444 | -1.19, 0.555 | 0.480 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.499 | 0.656 | -0.787, 1.78 | 0.450 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.361 | 19.8, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.103 | 0.511 | -1.10, 0.898 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.020 | 0.364 | -0.694, 0.734 | 0.957 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.139 | 0.538 | -0.914, 1.19 | 0.796 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.46 | 0.154 | 4.16, 4.76 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.462 | 0.218 | 0.035, 0.888 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.177 | 0.198 | -0.211, 0.564 | 0.375 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.017 | 0.290 | -0.585, 0.551 | 0.954 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.058 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.0 | 0.878 | 57.3, 60.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.62 | 1.242 | -0.818, 4.05 | 0.196 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.103 | 0.919 | -1.90, 1.70 | 0.911 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.281 | 1.355 | -2.38, 2.94 | 0.837 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.291 | 15.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.412 | -0.935, 0.678 | 0.756 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.308 | 0.313 | -0.921, 0.304 | 0.328 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.660 | 0.461 | -0.243, 1.56 | 0.157 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.232 | 12.0, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.256 | 0.329 | -0.901, 0.388 | 0.437 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.017 | 0.222 | -0.453, 0.419 | 0.940 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.212 | 0.329 | -0.433, 0.856 | 0.522 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.484 | 27.1, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.385 | 0.685 | -1.73, 0.958 | 0.576 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.289 | 0.467 | -1.21, 0.627 | 0.538 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.869 | 0.690 | -0.484, 2.22 | 0.213 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.691 | 13.6, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.308 | 0.978 | -1.61, 2.22 | 0.754 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.233 | 0.569 | -1.35, 0.882 | 0.684 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.098 | 0.843 | -1.75, 1.55 | 0.908 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.72 | 0.558 | 2.62, 4.81 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.513 | 0.789 | -2.06, 1.03 | 0.518 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.021 | 0.386 | -0.735, 0.778 | 0.956 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.020 | 0.573 | -1.10, 1.14 | 0.972 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.28 | 0.510 | 2.28, 4.28 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.487 | 0.721 | -1.90, 0.926 | 0.501 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.166 | 0.423 | -0.664, 0.996 | 0.696 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.199 | 0.627 | -1.03, 1.43 | 0.752 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.4 | 1.202 | 49.1, 53.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.41 | 1.700 | -4.75, 1.92 | 0.407 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.541 | 0.895 | -2.30, 1.21 | 0.548 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.31 | 1.328 | -0.292, 4.91 | 0.087 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.4 | 1.345 | 47.8, 53.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 1.902 | -2.55, 4.90 | 0.538 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.177 | 1.253 | -2.63, 2.28 | 0.888 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.786 | 1.853 | -4.42, 2.85 | 0.673 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.18 (95% CI [18.52, 19.84], t(132) = 56.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.70], t(132) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.80])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.47], t(132) = -0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.13], t(132) = -0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.03 (95% CI [10.49, 11.56], t(132) = 40.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.14], t(132) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.79], t(132) = 0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.61], t(132) = -0.45, p = 0.653; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.26 (95% CI [43.03, 45.48], t(132) = 70.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.83, 2.63], t(132) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.03], t(132) = 0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.83], t(132) = 0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.62 (95% CI [14.95, 16.28], t(132) = 46.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.99], t(132) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.82], t(132) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.21], t(132) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.89, 12.78], t(132) = 53.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.61], t(132) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.15], t(132) = -2.78, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.06], t(132) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.33 (95% CI [10.87, 11.79], t(132) = 48.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.81], t(132) = 0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.35], t(132) = -0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.04], t(132) = 0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.41 (95% CI [42.98, 45.84], t(132) = 60.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-0.74, 3.31], t(132) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.87, 0.29], t(132) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-2.41, 2.25], t(132) = -0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.51 (95% CI [24.23, 28.79], t(132) = 22.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.36, 95% CI [-5.59, 0.87], t(132) = -1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.38], t(132) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-4.44, 2.12], t(132) = -0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 45.10 (95% CI [41.70, 48.51], t(132) = 25.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.64, 95% CI [-8.46, 1.18], t(132) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-0.77, 5.69], t(132) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-5.90, 3.64], t(132) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.82 (95% CI [19.67, 21.97], t(132) = 35.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.40], t(132) = 0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.23], t(132) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 7.18e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.46], t(132) = -0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.21 (95% CI [12.32, 14.09], t(132) = 29.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.75], t(132) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.55], t(132) = -0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.78], t(132) = 0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.99e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.54 (95% CI [19.83, 21.25], t(132) = 56.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.90], t(132) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.73], t(132) = 0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 8.92e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.19], t(132) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.46 (95% CI [4.16, 4.76], t(132) = 28.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.04, 0.89], t(132) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.04, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.56], t(132) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.58])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.55], t(132) = -0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.03 (95% CI [57.30, 60.75], t(132) = 67.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.62, 95% CI [-0.82, 4.05], t(132) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.90, 1.70], t(132) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-2.38, 2.94], t(132) = 0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.64 (95% CI [15.07, 16.21], t(132) = 53.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.68], t(132) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.30], t(132) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.56], t(132) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.87])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.44 (95% CI [11.98, 12.89], t(132) = 53.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.39], t(132) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42], t(132) = -0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.86], t(132) = 0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [27.13, 29.03], t(132) = 57.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.96], t(132) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.63], t(132) = -0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.22], t(132) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.59, 16.30], t(132) = 21.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.61, 2.22], t(132) = 0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.88], t(132) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.55], t(132) = -0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.72 (95% CI [2.62, 4.81], t(132) = 6.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.03], t(132) = -0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.78], t(132) = 0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 6.10e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.14], t(132) = 0.04, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 5.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [2.28, 4.28], t(132) = 6.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.90, 0.93], t(132) = -0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.00], t(132) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.43], t(132) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.43 (95% CI [49.07, 53.78], t(132) = 42.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-4.75, 1.92], t(132) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.21], t(132) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.31, 95% CI [-0.29, 4.91], t(132) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.39 (95% CI [47.76, 53.03], t(132) = 37.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-2.55, 4.90], t(132) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-2.63, 2.28], t(132) = -0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-4.42, 2.85], t(132) = -0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 595.955 | 604.737 | -294.978 | 589.955 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 597.031 | 614.595 | -292.516 | 585.031 | 4.924 | 3 | 0.177 |
setv | null | 3 | 519.052 | 527.834 | -256.526 | 513.052 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 523.352 | 540.915 | -255.676 | 511.352 | 1.700 | 3 | 0.637 |
maks | null | 3 | 727.221 | 736.003 | -360.611 | 721.221 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 731.059 | 748.623 | -359.530 | 719.059 | 2.162 | 3 | 0.540 |
ibs | null | 3 | 575.644 | 584.426 | -284.822 | 569.644 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 579.482 | 597.045 | -283.741 | 567.482 | 2.162 | 3 | 0.539 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 458.461 | 467.243 | -226.231 | 452.461 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 456.524 | 474.087 | -222.262 | 444.524 | 7.937 | 3 | 0.047 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 486.880 | 495.661 | -240.440 | 480.880 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 491.391 | 508.954 | -239.695 | 479.391 | 1.489 | 3 | 0.685 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 805.145 | 813.927 | -399.572 | 799.145 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 803.952 | 821.516 | -395.976 | 791.952 | 7.192 | 3 | 0.066 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 920.411 | 929.193 | -457.206 | 914.411 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 921.690 | 939.253 | -454.845 | 909.690 | 4.721 | 3 | 0.193 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,030.376 | 1,039.157 | -512.188 | 1,024.376 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,030.042 | 1,047.606 | -509.021 | 1,018.042 | 6.333 | 3 | 0.096 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 734.931 | 743.713 | -364.466 | 728.931 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 739.958 | 757.521 | -363.979 | 727.958 | 0.974 | 3 | 0.808 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 658.451 | 667.233 | -326.226 | 652.451 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 662.358 | 679.921 | -325.179 | 650.358 | 2.094 | 3 | 0.553 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 596.118 | 604.900 | -295.059 | 590.118 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 601.935 | 619.499 | -294.968 | 589.935 | 0.183 | 3 | 0.980 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 385.799 | 394.581 | -189.900 | 379.799 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 384.402 | 401.966 | -186.201 | 372.402 | 7.397 | 3 | 0.060 |
rki | null | 3 | 846.880 | 855.662 | -420.440 | 840.880 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 850.392 | 867.956 | -419.196 | 838.392 | 2.488 | 3 | 0.477 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 544.051 | 552.833 | -269.026 | 538.051 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 547.810 | 565.374 | -267.905 | 535.810 | 2.241 | 3 | 0.524 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 470.646 | 479.428 | -232.323 | 464.646 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 475.620 | 493.183 | -231.810 | 463.620 | 1.027 | 3 | 0.795 |
raq | null | 3 | 674.676 | 683.458 | -334.338 | 668.676 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 678.957 | 696.521 | -333.479 | 666.957 | 1.719 | 3 | 0.633 |
who | null | 3 | 756.288 | 765.069 | -375.144 | 750.288 | |||
who | random | 6 | 761.723 | 779.287 | -374.862 | 749.723 | 0.564 | 3 | 0.905 |
phq | null | 3 | 678.814 | 687.596 | -336.407 | 672.814 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 684.341 | 701.905 | -336.171 | 672.341 | 0.473 | 3 | 0.925 |
gad | null | 3 | 673.857 | 682.639 | -333.928 | 667.857 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 678.652 | 696.216 | -333.326 | 666.652 | 1.205 | 3 | 0.752 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 901.724 | 910.506 | -447.862 | 895.724 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 904.034 | 921.598 | -446.017 | 892.034 | 3.690 | 3 | 0.297 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 952.428 | 961.210 | -473.214 | 946.428 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 957.626 | 975.189 | -472.813 | 945.626 | 0.802 | 3 | 0.849 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 39 | 19.18 ± 2.11 | 39 | 19.95 ± 2.11 | 0.110 | -0.456 | ||
sets | 2nd | 33 | 18.86 ± 2.09 | 0.190 | 27 | 19.59 ± 2.07 | 0.211 | 0.176 | -0.436 |
setv | 1st | 39 | 11.03 ± 1.70 | 39 | 11.41 ± 1.70 | 0.319 | -0.340 | ||
setv | 2nd | 33 | 11.28 ± 1.66 | -0.225 | 27 | 11.48 ± 1.62 | -0.064 | 0.634 | -0.179 |
maks | 1st | 39 | 44.26 ± 3.90 | 39 | 45.15 ± 3.90 | 0.312 | -0.436 | ||
maks | 2nd | 33 | 44.30 ± 3.74 | -0.021 | 27 | 45.57 ± 3.58 | -0.203 | 0.183 | -0.618 |
ibs | 1st | 39 | 15.62 ± 2.12 | 39 | 15.67 ± 2.12 | 0.915 | -0.038 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 33 | 15.81 ± 2.06 | -0.143 | 27 | 16.13 ± 2.00 | -0.345 | 0.542 | -0.241 |
ers_e | 1st | 39 | 12.33 ± 1.43 | 39 | 12.31 ± 1.43 | 0.937 | 0.033 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 33 | 11.81 ± 1.37 | 0.675 | 27 | 12.29 ± 1.32 | 0.018 | 0.167 | -0.624 |
ers_r | 1st | 39 | 11.33 ± 1.47 | 39 | 11.49 ± 1.47 | 0.645 | -0.143 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 33 | 11.18 ± 1.45 | 0.143 | 27 | 11.62 ± 1.43 | -0.127 | 0.235 | -0.413 |
pss_pa | 1st | 39 | 44.41 ± 4.56 | 39 | 45.69 ± 4.56 | 0.217 | -0.383 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 33 | 43.12 ± 4.49 | 0.386 | 27 | 44.32 ± 4.42 | 0.411 | 0.301 | -0.358 |
pss_ps | 1st | 39 | 26.51 ± 7.27 | 39 | 24.15 ± 7.27 | 0.155 | 0.505 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 33 | 27.67 ± 7.08 | -0.248 | 27 | 24.15 ± 6.89 | 0.001 | 0.054 | 0.753 |
pss | 1st | 39 | 45.10 ± 10.86 | 39 | 41.46 ± 10.86 | 0.142 | 0.536 | ||
pss | 2nd | 33 | 47.57 ± 10.55 | -0.363 | 27 | 42.79 ± 10.24 | -0.196 | 0.079 | 0.702 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 39 | 20.82 ± 3.67 | 39 | 21.59 ± 3.67 | 0.357 | -0.302 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 33 | 20.85 ± 3.60 | -0.010 | 27 | 21.29 ± 3.53 | 0.116 | 0.628 | -0.176 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 39 | 13.21 ± 2.83 | 39 | 13.69 ± 2.83 | 0.450 | -0.266 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 33 | 12.89 ± 2.76 | 0.172 | 27 | 13.88 ± 2.69 | -0.100 | 0.165 | -0.538 |
rki_peer | 1st | 39 | 20.54 ± 2.25 | 39 | 20.44 ± 2.25 | 0.841 | 0.068 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 33 | 20.56 ± 2.20 | -0.013 | 27 | 20.60 ± 2.15 | -0.106 | 0.948 | -0.025 |
rki_expect | 1st | 39 | 4.46 ± 0.96 | 39 | 4.92 ± 0.96 | 0.036 | -0.558 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 33 | 4.64 ± 0.96 | -0.214 | 27 | 5.08 ± 0.96 | -0.193 | 0.075 | -0.538 |
rki | 1st | 39 | 59.03 ± 5.48 | 39 | 60.64 ± 5.48 | 0.196 | -0.425 | ||
rki | 2nd | 33 | 58.92 ± 5.38 | 0.027 | 27 | 60.82 ± 5.27 | -0.047 | 0.172 | -0.499 |
raq_possible | 1st | 39 | 15.64 ± 1.82 | 39 | 15.51 ± 1.82 | 0.756 | 0.099 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 33 | 15.33 ± 1.79 | 0.238 | 27 | 15.86 ± 1.75 | -0.272 | 0.248 | -0.411 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 39 | 12.44 ± 1.45 | 39 | 12.18 ± 1.45 | 0.437 | 0.279 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 33 | 12.42 ± 1.41 | 0.018 | 27 | 12.37 ± 1.37 | -0.212 | 0.901 | 0.049 |
raq | 1st | 39 | 28.08 ± 3.02 | 39 | 27.69 ± 3.02 | 0.576 | 0.199 | ||
raq | 2nd | 33 | 27.79 ± 2.94 | 0.150 | 27 | 28.27 ± 2.86 | -0.301 | 0.521 | -0.251 |
who | 1st | 39 | 14.95 ± 4.32 | 39 | 15.26 ± 4.32 | 0.754 | -0.132 | ||
who | 2nd | 33 | 14.72 ± 4.15 | 0.100 | 27 | 14.93 ± 3.98 | 0.141 | 0.842 | -0.090 |
phq | 1st | 39 | 3.72 ± 3.49 | 39 | 3.21 ± 3.49 | 0.518 | 0.325 | ||
phq | 2nd | 33 | 3.74 ± 3.31 | -0.014 | 27 | 3.25 ± 3.13 | -0.026 | 0.556 | 0.312 |
gad | 1st | 39 | 3.28 ± 3.19 | 39 | 2.79 ± 3.19 | 0.501 | 0.280 | ||
gad | 2nd | 33 | 3.45 ± 3.06 | -0.096 | 27 | 3.16 ± 2.94 | -0.210 | 0.711 | 0.166 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 39 | 51.43 ± 7.51 | 39 | 50.01 ± 7.51 | 0.408 | 0.385 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 33 | 50.89 ± 7.17 | 0.147 | 27 | 51.78 ± 6.81 | -0.482 | 0.621 | -0.244 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 39 | 50.39 ± 8.40 | 39 | 51.57 ± 8.40 | 0.538 | -0.228 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 33 | 50.21 ± 8.15 | 0.034 | 27 | 50.60 ± 7.90 | 0.187 | 0.852 | -0.075 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(120.71) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.71)
2st
t(130.34) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.80)
setv
1st
t(106.66) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.15)
2st
t(123.07) = 0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.04)
maks
1st
t(94.30) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.65)
2st
t(111.18) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.61 to 3.15)
ibs
1st
t(103.01) = 0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.00)
2st
t(120.25) = 0.61, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.36)
ers_e
1st
t(95.55) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.62)
2st
t(112.71) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.17)
ers_r
1st
t(113.44) = 0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.81)
2st
t(127.17) = 1.19, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.18)
pss_pa
1st
t(113.64) = 1.24, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.76 to 3.33)
2st
t(127.27) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.49)
pss_ps
1st
t(104.26) = -1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-5.62 to 0.91)
2st
t(121.27) = -1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-7.10 to 0.07)
pss
1st
t(102.66) = -1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-8.52 to 1.24)
2st
t(119.95) = -1.77, p = 0.079, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-10.11 to 0.56)
rki_responsible
1st
t(109.40) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.42)
2st
t(124.88) = 0.49, p = 0.628, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.28)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(104.69) = 0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.76)
2st
t(121.61) = 1.40, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.38)
rki_peer
1st
t(106.76) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.91)
2st
t(123.14) = 0.07, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.15)
rki_expect
1st
t(126.68) = 2.12, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.03 to 0.89)
2st
t(132.26) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.94)
rki
1st
t(109.39) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.85 to 4.08)
2st
t(124.88) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.83 to 4.63)
raq_possible
1st
t(111.39) = -0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.69)
2st
t(126.07) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.44)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(103.27) = -0.78, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.40)
2st
t(120.46) = -0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.67)
raq
1st
t(103.80) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.97)
2st
t(120.90) = 0.64, p = 0.521, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.97)
who
1st
t(95.35) = 0.31, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.63 to 2.25)
2st
t(112.47) = 0.20, p = 0.842, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.30)
phq
1st
t(89.11) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.08 to 1.06)
2st
t(103.74) = -0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.16)
gad
1st
t(95.74) = -0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.94)
2st
t(112.94) = -0.37, p = 0.711, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.25)
nb_pcs
1st
t(91.48) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-4.79 to 1.96)
2st
t(107.35) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.69 to 4.48)
nb_mcs
1st
t(101.67) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.60 to 4.95)
2st
t(119.09) = 0.19, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-3.73 to 4.51)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(69.82) = -0.81, p = 0.419, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.52)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(66.24) = 0.24, p = 0.808, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.67)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(63.12) = 0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.51)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(65.33) = 1.31, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.16)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(63.44) = -0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.40)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(67.93) = 0.49, p = 0.628, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.70)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(67.98) = -1.57, p = 0.121, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-3.12 to 0.37)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(65.64) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.46)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(65.24) = 0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.26 to 4.92)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(66.92) = -0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.04)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(65.75) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.15)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(66.26) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.95)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(71.57) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.58)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(66.91) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.17)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(67.41) = 1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.03)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(65.39) = 0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.68)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(65.53) = 1.14, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.60)
who
1st vs 2st
t(63.39) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.91)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(61.75) = 0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.89)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(63.49) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.29)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(62.38) = 1.80, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.73)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(64.99) = -0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.70 to 1.77)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(64.25) = -0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.49)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(62.24) = 0.93, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.80)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(60.60) = 0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(61.76) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.84)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(60.76) = -2.77, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-0.90 to -0.15)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(63.17) = -0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.37)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(63.20) = -1.60, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.32)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(61.92) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.11 to 3.42)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(61.71) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.83 to 5.76)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(62.61) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.26)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(61.98) = -0.71, p = 0.481, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.57)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(62.25) = 0.05, p = 0.957, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.75)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(65.29) = 0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.57)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(62.61) = -0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.74)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(62.88) = -0.98, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.32)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(61.79) = -0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.43)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(61.86) = -0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.65)
who
1st vs 2st
t(60.74) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.91)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(59.89) = 0.06, p = 0.956, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.79)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(60.79) = 0.39, p = 0.696, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.01)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(60.22) = -0.60, p = 0.548, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.25)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(61.58) = -0.14, p = 0.888, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.69 to 2.33)